Section of Paediatrics (Allergy and Immunology), Imperial College London, London, UK; Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Department of Allergy and Immunology, Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Mar-Apr;6(2):367-375. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.12.015.
Given the prevalence and impact of childhood food allergy, there is increasing interest in interventions targeting disease prevention. Although interventions such as early introduction of dietary peanut have demonstrated efficacy in a small number of well-conducted randomized clinical trials, evidence for broader effectiveness and successful implementation at a population level is still lacking, although epidemiological data suggest that such strategies are likely to be successful, at least for peanut. In this commentary, we explore the issues of translating evidence of efficacy studies (performed under optimal conditions) to make policy recommendations at a population level, and highlight potential benefits, harms, and unintended consequences of making population-based recommendations on the basis of randomized controlled trials. We discuss the complexity and barriers to effective primary and secondary prevention intervention implementation in resource-poor settings.
鉴于儿童食物过敏的普遍性和影响,人们越来越关注针对疾病预防的干预措施。尽管早期引入食用花生等干预措施已在少数精心设计的随机临床试验中证明了其有效性,但在更广泛的有效性和在人群层面成功实施方面仍缺乏证据,尽管流行病学数据表明此类策略可能是成功的,至少对花生是如此。在这篇评论中,我们探讨了将疗效研究证据(在最佳条件下进行)转化为人群层面的政策建议的问题,并强调了在基于随机对照试验的基础上对人群提出建议的潜在益处、危害和意外后果。我们讨论了在资源匮乏环境中实施有效初级和二级预防干预措施的复杂性和障碍。